davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:44 am but Hanhart can't be serious about the young naked being him i don't see the point of that.
Hanhart makes a persuasive case that Paul is him. Just as Paul is the Beloved Disciple in the Fourth Gospel.
I quote Hanhart:
Once the "youth" had been identified, it was possible to solve the puzzling question concerning the number of angels the women see. With this new key the lock easily opened.
(a) Matthew, wanting to avoid a direct reference to Paul and thus neutralize Paul's alleged antinomianism, created his own ironic midrash ... And instead of Mark's comforting angelus interpres, we now read of a fiery angel of YHWH rolling the stone from the entrance of the monument in the evening...
[...]
And so Luke, with his penchant for reconciling differences, had the women see "two men", that is, the angels of Paul and Peter...
(
The Open Tomb, p. 568, cursive original, my bold)
Hanhart calls 'anachronism' the presence of Paul in the Jesus story allegorizing the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, but if Paul was really active during the 70 CE, then
eo ipso the anachronism disappears.